"The security dilemma is the key to understanding how in an anarchic international system states with fundamentally compatible goals still end up in competition and at war. The security dilemma exists when “many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security decrease the security of others.”! It provides the rational foundation for what Jervis termed the “spiral model,” which describes how the interaction between states that are seeking only security can fuel competition and strain political relations. Second, Jervis explains that the magnitude and nature of the security dilemma depend on two variables: the offense-defense balance and offense-defense differentiation.’ As a result, the security dilemma can vary across space and time. Although states exist in a condition of international anarchy that does not vary, there can be significant variation in the attractiveness of cooperative or competitive means," -Glaser (1997)

 Robert Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30 (January 1978), 169. For earlier discussions of the security dilemma, see John H. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 2 (January 1950), which identifies the basic concept, but does not develop it extensively; and Herbert Butterfield, History and Human Relations (London: Collins, 1951).

 Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Polities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), chap. 3, esp. 62-76; these pages provide a more thorough discussion of the basic workings of the security dilemma than does “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma.” For an early discussion of this type of interaction, see J. David Singer, “Threat-Perception and the Armament-Tension Dilemma,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (March 1958); for a recent discussion, see Charles L. Glaser, “Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models,” World Politics 44 (July 1992).

----

Job, Brian L., ed. The insecurity dilemma: National security of third world states. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1992.

["Positing an 'insecurity dilemma,' in which national security, defined as regime security by state authorities, becomes pitted against the incompatible demands of ethnic, social, and religious forces, this book addresses the problems and prospects for security in the Third World in the 1990s. The authors advance four lines of argument: First, there is a need to rethink the traditional realist notions of states, national security, territorial threat, and war. Second, the security dilemmas of Third World regimes are bound up in the process of state building and in the practical implications of political development. Third, the repressive strategies that many Third World regimes have adopted reflect an underlying logic associated with the regime holders' interest in their short-term survival prospects. And finally, radically altered relationships and conditions in the international system mean that the security interests of Third World regimes and peoples will be viewed differently in the future by both superpowers and middle powers; and the consequences may well be that traditional regional powers will attempt to (re)assert their security priorities and claims to dominance."]

Glaser, Charles L. "The security dilemma revisited." World politics 50.1 (1997): 171-201.

Jervis, Robert. "Cooperation under the security dilemma." World politics 30.2 (1978): 167-214.

Posen, Barry R. "The security dilemma and ethnic conflict." Survival 35.1 (1993): 27-47.

Jervis, Robert. "Was the cold war a security dilemma?." Journal of Cold War Studies 3.1 (2001): 36-60.

Herz, John H. "Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma." World politics 2.2 (1950): 157-180.

Schweller, Randall L. "Neorealism's status‐quo bias: What security dilemma?." Security Studies 5.3 (1996): 90-121.

Jackson, Richard. "Regime security." Contemporary security studies (2007): 146-63.

----

Note:

Threat management can potentially exacerbate conflicts in several ways:

1. Escalation of Tensions: When one party perceives a threat from another, it can lead to a cycle of action and reaction. Each side may take measures to defend itself or neutralize the perceived threat, which can escalate tensions and lead to a conflict.

2. Misinterpretation of Intentions: Threats are often subjective and can be misinterpreted. What one party sees as a defensive measure might be viewed as an offensive threat by another. This misinterpretation can lead to a conflict based on misunderstandings.

3. Zero-Sum Thinking: Threats can lead to zero-sum thinking, where one party believes that its security can only be guaranteed at the expense of the other's security. This mentality can make conflict resolution more challenging as both sides may become entrenched in their positions.

4. Preemptive Actions: In response to perceived threats, parties may take preemptive actions to eliminate the threat before it materializes. These preemptive strikes can lead to conflict if the threatened party perceives them as acts of aggression.

5. Deterrence Failures: Threat management often relies on deterrence strategies, where one party threatens to use force to prevent the other from taking certain actions. However, deterrence can fail if the threatened party refuses to back down, leading to a conflict.

6. Arms Races: In an effort to manage threats, parties may engage in arms races, where they build up their military capabilities to deter potential adversaries. This can create a cycle of competition and mistrust, increasing the likelihood of conflict.

7. Insecurity Dilemma: The insecurity dilemma occurs when one party's efforts to enhance its security are perceived as a threat by others. For example, a country's military buildup may be seen as aggressive by neighboring states, leading to a security dilemma and potential conflict.

8. Lack of Communication: Effective threat management often requires open lines of communication to clarify intentions and reduce misunderstandings. However, if parties do not communicate or engage in diplomacy, it can exacerbate conflicts.

9. Miscalculations: Perceptions of threats can be based on miscalculations or faulty intelligence. Acting on incorrect threat assessments can lead to conflicts that might have been avoided with more accurate information.

----

Also see:

[Regime Security]
[Regime Change]
[Regime Theory]

[Punishment Puzzle (Repression vs. Accomodation)]

[Multipolar world order]

[Bargaining/Negotiation (Serious Games)]

https://archive.org/details/theories-of-international-regimes-by-andreas-hasenclever-peter-mayer-volker-rittberger